-1=e^ipi

With respect to the Pleistocene, there is very good correlation. Patrick Moore was referring to a much longer time scale, say 500 million years.

With respect to Mr. Moore, I think it helps to have perspective as to where he is coming from. It seems he is mostly trying to counter misinformation coming from alarmists, or misinformation about climate change within society. Perhaps there are a fair amount of people in society who falsely think that CO2 is essentially the only factor that influences global temperatures and Moore is simply trying to point out that no there are other relevant factors and things are more complicated than many people in society think it is.

Pretty sure that the claim was about weak correlation, as opposed to no correlation.

Interestingly, the studies by Philip Oreopoulos, which show a hiring bias against foreign names, also show a larger and more statistically significant bias against male names. But the second fact doesn't fit in Cybercoma's SJW word view, so it gets ignored.

I didn't say completely stable. I said roughly stable. Key word here is roughly.

The question is whether the change in CO2 is due to human activity. For millenia during the holocene were roughly stable at 280 ppm. This suggests that CO2 levels were roughly in equilibrium. Then humans started adding extra CO2 and CO2 emitted by humans exceeds the change in CO2. This suggests that the change in atmospheric CO2 is due to human activity. But maybe all the CO2 emitted by humans magically went into a black hole, and then the flying spaghetti monster came along and added extra CO2 to the atmosphere. I can't prove it didn't. All hail the FSM! Ramen!

This is clearly an asexualphobic microaggression and I am deeply triggered. Time to head to my safe space.

I know right. Like when I apply for a government job and the institution known as the government tells me that I will have a lower chance of getting the job due to my race... nah that's totally not institutional racism. Nor is it institutional racism when other institutions, such as universities, do the same thing.

No, see the SJWs have redefined the word racism, because it's actually meaning is inconvenient to them. We all just need to listen and believe.

You actually believe this nonsense? I reject your racist definition of racism.

You just keep changing arguments, don't you? The fact that the recent increase in CO2 is primarily due to human activity can be easily verified with simple mass calculations. We know how much air there is in the atmosphere, therefore we know how much carbon dioxide corresponds to 1 ppm of CO2. 1 ppm of CO2 corresponds to 2.13 gigatons of carbon. If you add up the amount of fossil fuels we are burning, the CO2 produced by it exceeds the rate of increase of atmospheric CO2.

What exactly about this paper makes you think it disagrees with the claim that there is at least a 95% probability that at least 50% of the warming since 1950 has been anthropegenic. You haven't even provided anything that tries to deal with the attribution problem.

That paper refers to the no-feedback climate sensitivity of CO2, for which an estimate of 0.8 K is not too far off. It doesn't take into account feedbacks such as the water vapour feedback. It's claim that runaway climate change is unphysical is indeed correct.

Nothing in that link contradicts the idea that there is at least a 95% probability that at least 50% of the warming since 1950 has been anthropogenic.

Proof is a strong word. There is plenty of evidence that suggests that there is at least a 95% probability that at least 50% of the warming since 1950 has been anthropogenic.

The conclusion does not follow from the premise. The fact that other factors influence temperature of the planet beyond CO2 does not contradict the claim that most of the warming over the past 50 years has been caused by CO2 emissions.

Oldest person lived to like 124. And the queen has a lot more resources available to be kept alive. It is a very real possibility that she will be around for another 40 years.

Nonsense, we have been in an ice age for the past 2 million years, and we are at historic lows for CO2 in the atmosphere. The only other time with comparable CO2 levels was 300 million years ago right before the permian-triassic mass extinction event, which was also an ice age.

But, wow, that's a pretty interesting paper. Thanks for the link. I know Roy Spencer tried to estimate climate sensitivity using similar data and found an estimate of 1.3 C. But it was done somewhat crudely and didn't have a good estimate of the uncertainty.

The article you link supports my claims. The climate sensitivity estimates presented in the abstract are obtained using the energy balance approach. But I did write a mistake saying median ECS for CMIP5 models is 3.4 C. It's 3.2 C.

Of course her and Garneau got wiped out. They didn't have fancy last names.

If you are referring to a climate sensitivity of ~2C, then that is also supported by instrumental data (using an energy balance approach or time series analysis) as well as paleoclimate data. Actually, the median ECS for CMIP5 general climate models is 3.2 C. So I'm using a lower sensitivity than the general climate models. In any case, I was trying to give and order of magnitude estimate of the effect of Ontario reducing emissions. It looks like Canada overall can only reduce global temperatures by a few thousandths of a degree C.

No, that's how Moore can make his claim about a weak correlation. By ignoring other relevant factors such as solar irradiance or albedo changes.

They cause each other. CO2 changes cause temperature changes, and temperature changes cause CO2 changes.